Date: 19981218
Docket: T-2137-97
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the
decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Appellant,
- and -
YING LUN LUK,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
WETSTON, J.
[1] The Minister appeals the decision of the Citizenship Judge dated July 28, 1997 wherein the Judge approved the application of Mr. Luk for a grant of citizenship under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act. The grounds on which the Citizenship Judge based his decision were: "despite the resident's shortage of 898 days the respondent provided proof within the Thurlow framework of both the establishment and maintenance of a Canadian centrality of mode of living totally consistent with the pattern of full-time educational pursuit."
[2] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration appeals on the ground that during the four years preceding the date of application for citizenship, the respondent did not accumulate three years of residence in Canada as required by paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. Mr. Luk landed in Montreal in December 1992. At the time, he was studying law at the University of Hong Kong. He obtained his Post-Graduate Certificate in Law. After that, he remained in Hong Kong and attended Hong Kong Shue Yan College to obtain a Chinese Law Degree. He described this as an opportunity which does not occur often since this course is not offered regularly. He testified that he felt that it would give him an advantage in law practice upon his settlement in Canada.
[3] Mr. Luk has applied to the National Committee on Accreditation to determine the requirements for a certificate of qualification in Canada. He could have applied after his Post-Graduate Certificate in Law in 1993, but decided to remain in Hong Kong to pursue the Chinese Law Degree. Mr. Luk applied to the National Committee on Accreditation in April/ May of 1996 and filed his citizenship application in October 1996 at the same time as the rest of his family. During his studies, he did apply to Dalhousie Law School but was refused admission. He did not try any other law school in Canada and decided to remain in Hong Kong to pursue the Chinese Law Degree.
[4] What is clear from the evidence is that Mr. Luk is energetic and was able to complete a five year program in approximately 2.5 years. He did come back to Canada on what would appear to be three occasions but stayed in Hong Kong to pursue his education and for other personal reasons. He also testified that while in Hong Kong, he did maintain some attachment to Canada by joining a number of Hong Kong/Canada social and student clubs. He was also a dependant during the entire period.
[5] In a series of recent decisions, I reviewed the law with respect to residency and in particular with respect to applications for citizenship from students and former students. These decisions are Wai Hong Chan (T-193-98) dated 30 November, 1998; Kit Yu Ho (T-145-98) dated 30 November 1998; and Ka Ying Bennette Wong (T-866-98) dated 30 November 1998. In those cases, I emphasized that in my opinion where physical presence is minimal the most important consideration is the quality of the applicant's attachment to Canada. There must be evidence to show a genuine attachment to this country. That attachment must go beyond having only connections to family located in Canada, a Canadian driver's licence, a social insurance number or credit cards.
[6] While Mr. Luk did apply to Dalhousie, in my opinion this was insufficient to overcome the shortfall with respect to his attachment to Canada. There is little doubt that Mr. Luk has an impressive work ethic. He no doubt will, some day, be an outstanding Canadian citizen. However, in my opinion his application was simply premature. I am not persuaded that during the relevant period he became integrated into Canadian society, i.e., that he established residence in Canada both in mind and in fact. His efforts to return to Canada were minimal. While his reasons for his absences from Canada are laudatory, that does not outweigh his responsibility to form a genuine attachment to Canada.
[7] Accordingly, the appeal shall be allowed.
"Howard I. Wetston"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
December 18, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: T-2137-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29 |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the decision of a Citizenship Judge |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, |
Appellant,
Respondent.
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: WETSTON J.
DATED: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. David Tyndale
Mr. Peter K. Large
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Appellant
Solicitors of Record... continuation
610-372 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2W9
Amicus Curiae
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19981218
Docket: T-2137-97
| IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29 |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the decision of a Citizenship Judge |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, |
Appellant,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content